Open Stack

Just a thought… since you mentioned “parliamentary structure”, how about a “congress-like” structure which owns by two houses – one (Senate-like) represents the interests of commercial companies (tiered corporate seats) and the other one (House of Representatives-like) represents the interests of development community (user seats, dev seats). Any policy could be proposed within each house but has to get approval by the other house. Each house could have the same seats (around 9~12) or maybe we can offer more corporate seats to get more funds but it still can be constrained and balanced by the other house no matter how many seats it is.

Too complicated or not??

Sincerely,

Yoyo Chiang

Strategy & Business Division
CCMA / ITRI
Tel : +886-3-591-4561
Fax : +886-3-583-8246
Mobile : +886-988-580-206
Email : yoyochiang at itri.org.tw<mailto:yoyochiang at itri.org.tw>

From: openstack-bounces+yoyochiang=itri.org.tw at lists.launchpad.net [mailto:openstack-bounces+yoyochiang=itri.org.tw at lists.launchpad.net] On Behalf Of Sean Roberts
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 7:04 AM
To: Joshua McKenty
Cc: foundation at lists.openstack.org; OpenStack; Thierry Carrez; Dallas Kashuba
Subject: Re: [Openstack] [OpenStack Foundation] Foundation Structure: An Alternative

Ah, right. You are referring to a more parliamentary structure, where the membership of the board would be based on annual schedule and if a vote of no confidence is taken. I guess that could work, if that was what you meant. I would want a minimum of 6 months or so term as to keep the board from see sawing back and forth. We would want a high bar for the no confidence vote as well.
I like having 9-12 people max in a meeting as a general rule. 20 generally means either a few speak or chaos.
sean
roberts

infrastructure strategy

seanrob at yahoo-inc.com<applewebdata://2E35986A-DC2A-436F-BB4A-C451982006C2/seanrob@yahoo-inc.com>
direct 408-349-5234    mobile 925-980-4729

701 first avenue, sunnyvale, ca, 94089-0703, us
phone (408) 349 3300    fax (408) 349 3301


On 3/12/12 3:39 PM, "Joshua McKenty" <joshua at pistoncloud.com<mailto:joshua at pistoncloud.com>> wrote:

I'm on the look-out for emergent points of consensus, and I think I see one - Sean, you highlighted a 12-member board as being a target, and Dallas mentioned a concern about keeping the board a manageable size as well. Setting aside for a moment the composition (user seats, dev seats, tiered corporate seats vs. all elected, etc) - is a 12-seat board the target?

A second question - how would you define a self-affiliated block of companies? I can imagine throwing my vote behind a shared candidate, but would I have the right to pull support during their term, or would I need to wait for the next election? Can we have a vote of no-confidence for such a representative? (I suppose we could always draft a side letter, but I'm hoping for a general-purpose solution).

Heidi's name is dirty enough as it is.

--
Joshua McKenty, CEO
Piston Cloud Computing, Inc.
w: (650) 24-CLOUD
m: (650) 283-6846
http://www.pistoncloud.com

"Oh, Westley, we'll never survive!"
"Nonsense. You're only saying that because no one ever has."


On Monday, March 12, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Sean Roberts wrote


====================================================================
本信件可能包含工研院機密資訊，非指定之收件者，請勿使用或揭露本信件內容，並請銷毀此信件。 
This email may contain confidential information. Please do not use or disclose it in any way and delete it if you are not the intended recipient.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/attachments/20120313/380bd888/attachment-0003.html>